Homeopathy
' Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine invented my Samuel Hannerman in the 18th centurary. It essentially revolves around three 'principles' - "the law of simmilars", "the law of infinitesimals" and "Seccusion and water memory". There is no good evidence to suggest that any of these effects exist and they are largely considered to be scientifically implausable. It is a consensus umongst medical experts that homeopathy has no effect beyond placeabo.' The three laws The 'law' of simmilars The first law invented by samuel hahnemann is the 'law' of simmilars. Hahnemann observed that he got simmilar symptons from ingesting chinchona bark (which was at the time used to treat malaria) to the symptoms of malaria. He then decided that this shows that you can cure any condition by consuming a substance which, in a healthy patient, would cause the same symptons as the condition you are treating. Some have claimed that homeopathy works through "stimulating the bodies natural healing abilities", others that the law of simmilar removes "miasmas" which they claim are the cause of all disease. Most medical experts claim that it appears to work, but is in fact meerely a placeabo effect. I am not aware of why Hahnemann decided that all diseases were caused by miasmas, and he did not back this theory up with evidence. Certainly there is no known logical mechanism by which the law of simmilars could work. As there is no reliable evidence of the existance of the law it can be concidered non-exsistant until such a time as there is evidence to the contrary (in keeping with the rule of the null hypothesis). The 'law' of infinitesimals Hahnemann soon saw a problem with this theory however. He observed that when you gave a poorly patient something that would bring out the symptoms of what they were suffering they got worse, not better. However, instead of abandoning his theory, the scientifically credible thing to do, he instead invented the law of infinitesimals. The law of infinitesimals states that when you dilute a substance that brings out symptoms in a healthy patient, it ceases to exasibate the symptoms in a patient and instead keeps only the substance's magical healing powers. In fact, homeopaths believe that dilluting a substance in water actually makes it's healing powers stronger, not weaker as you might logically expect. There is no logical explanation for this. At the time the concept that a very small portion (1 in 10^30 for example, is a common dillution) could still contain an active ingrediant was not seen as an obsurd idea as it is today, as atomic theory had not yet been developed. However, it is now known that at a dillution of beyond 10^23 (much lower than many common homeopathic dillutions) it is statistically unlikely that a single atom of the original substance (the mother-tinker) remains. It would then seem scientifically implausable that homeopathy could have any effect at all. To get around this problem homeopaths invented "water-memory". Insidentally, many skeptics have suggested that homeopathic dillusions below 10^23 should be considered to more dillute remadies, as in those cases it can be considered possible that there is actually an active ingredient in the remedy, although wether that active ingredient would have any effect remains to be seen.[1] Water memory Water memory is the theory that water carries a memory of chemicals it has previously come into contact with. It was invented to fix the problems encountered by homeopaths regarding the 'law' of infimatesimals. There is no known method of action by which this would work. There is no reliable evidence that this effect exsists. There is, therefore, no good reason to believe it exsists. Seccussion However, even if we accept for arguments sake that water memory is real there is a problem with exploiting it for homeopathic remedies. There is no good reason to believe that the water should main tain the memory of the chemicals in the mother-tinker but not other chemicals it had come into contact with in the past (eg. dirt, stone, feaces, urine and paper). To get arround this problem homeopaths claim that water only carries memory if it is seccussed. Seccussion is the prosses of shaking a remedy you a are preparing and/or tapping it agains a firm but giving surface in a multitude of directions. I have yet to find good evidence that seccussion is a genuine effect. Seccussion is also dependant upon the 'water memory effect', which has also not been shown to be real. Homeopathic practises and practitioners Lay homeopathy In the UK most homeopathic practisioners are actually working outsied the law, as they have not followed correct liscencing procedure for their products. This has been revield by the reaction of ma ny homeopaths to the planned consolodation of exsisting licencing laws. The homeopaths were not aware that the laws were not being changed, but were mearly being consolodated, saw that they would not be able to legally sell their products under the new law, and so complained to their MPs, asking them to block the bill. The MPs have then reassured the homeopaths that the laws aren't actually being changed, merely consolodated, niaevely pressuming that the homeopaths were actually working within the current laws Big Brand Homeopathy Should you desire to use a homeopathic solution for medical or other reasons, they can be purchased legally from several big pharmaseutical companies, who took the time to properly liscence their treatments. Most homeopathic products in Germany and France are licsenced. However, none of them have ever proved the ethicacy of their products, so it is not reccomended you take only homeopathy. If you do choose to try a homeopathic cure for your symtoms, be sure to consult a 'mainstream' medical practisioner seperately, as most cures they will perscribe you will be of a reasonable level of efficacy. Many medical and skeptical groups are opposed to the selling of homeopathy by pharmaseutical comapnies, as they believe repected companies selling those products gives homeopathy legitimascy whihc these groups do not feel it warrants. In particular, the Merseyside Skeptics Society has spent some time campaigning against the sale of homeopathy by Alliance Boots. Homeopathic pills The majority of homeopathic remedies are injested in the form of a pill, on which a small amount of homeopathic solution is placed. The pills are usually made of sugar, and the solution usually dilluted with water. Some have described the taste as unpleasant, although it is generally concidered less unpleasent than many pharmaceautical products, as the only rela ingrediants in homeopathy are sugar and water, and occasionally some other chemicals (although most homeopathic sollutions are formed, chemically speaking, of nothing but water). Dillution Dillution usually works as such: #Homeopaths consult records of provings (see below) to find what cure fits the symptoms they want to treat #They get a small amount of the base substance that brings out symptoms they wish to cure. This is called the Mother-Tinker #They then dillute it in steps of 1:10 (1D) or 1:100 (1C) #They then take the dilluted substance and dillute it again. #They then repeat step 4. until they have reached a dillution level they are happy with. Paradoxically homeopaths, believing that more dilluted remedies are more potent, charge more for ultra-dilluted remedies than they do for less dilluted 'treatments'. Provings Homeopaths decide what chemicals they use in their mother-tinkers by conducting a 'proving'. Essenetially in a proving homeopaths give patients a substance to bring out various symptoms. They then record what symptoms the patient experiences, and would concider a homeopathic dillution of that substance an effective cure for those symptoms. The first provings were conducted by Hahnemann, and where conducted using un-dilluted chemicals. However, most modern provings are conducted using homeopathic dillutions of chemicals, which are considered to be more effective and mroe ethical. Provings are not evidence for the effecacy of homeopath. '''This is not because they are badly conducted - some provings are conducted painfully poorly, others are conducted reasonably well (if you believe them an effective means of learning something). They are not to be conciderd evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy because that is not what they are designed to do. They can only be considered good data in favour of the efficacy of a homeopathic treatment if you already concider homeopathy to be effecactious, because the mechanism they claim to work by is dependant on the eficacy of homeopathy. Also, for example, they contain no placeobo wing or control groups, both normally concidered mandatory for good clinical trials of a substance. '''If somebody claims that a proving is evidence for homeopathy in general, they are wrong. 'References' '1'Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? A meta-analysis.